1. Objectivity & Values in
Sociology

2. Values & Sociology
All members of society – including sociologists – have values, beliefs and
opinions.
 Some argue it is both possible and desirable for sociologists to keep their
subjective values out of their research
 Others argue that staying value-neutral is impossible, because sociologists
are humans studying other humans
 So argue it is desirable for sociologists to use their values to improve
society

3. The Classical Sociologists & Values
For the early positivists, Comte and Durkheim, sociology’s job was to
discover the truth about how society worked and to improve human life.
Sociologists would be able to say with scientific certainty what was best for
society. Marx too saw himself as a scientist. He believed he had discovered
the truth about society’s future and the inevitability of classless society.
However, this shows that Marx took for granted the value of communism as
the ideal society and saw his scientific approach as helping to bring this
society about.

4. Max Weber
Weber distinguishes between value judgements and facts. He argues that a
value can neither be proved nor disproved by the facts – they belong to
different realms. However, he still sees an essential role for values in
sociological research…
1. Values as a guide to research: we can only select areas of study in terms
of their value relevance to us. For example, feminists value gender
equality, which leads them to study areas such as women’s oppression
2. Data collection and hypothesis testing: sociologists must be as objective
as possible when actually collecting the facts (e.g. not asking leading
questions) and the hypothesis must stand or fall solely on whether or not
it fits the observed facts
3. Values in the interpretation of data: facts need to be set in a theoretical
framework to understand their significance. This is influenced by the
sociologist’s values, which therefore must be stated explicitly
4. Values and the sociologist as a citizen: scientists and sociologists are also
citizens. They cannot dodge the moral issues their work raises or the uses
it is put to by hiding behind ‘value freedom’

5. Max Weber
Weber thus sees values as relevant when choosing what to research, when
interpreting data and in the use the findings are put to. But, they must be
kept out of the actual process of gathering data.
Sociology cannot tell us what values or goals we should hold but it can tell us
what means we should adopt if we want to achieve certain goals that we
value, and the consequences of holding these values. For example, we may
hold the value that racial discrimination is a good thing, but sociology may
tell us that this makes the economy less efficient by preventing some
talented individuals from taking on important jobs.

6. Value Freedom & Commitment
20th century positivists argued that their own values were irrelevant to their
research because science is concerned with matters of fact, not value, so
sociologists should remain morally neutral. Critics argue this reflected a
desire to make sociology respectable in a society where science has high
prestige. Gouldner argues that by the 1950s, American sociologists in
particular had become mere ‘spiritless technicians’ hiring themselves out to
organisations such as government and the military. An example of this is the
Human Terrain system in Afghanistan where anthropologists study different
social groups and the finding is used when making military decisions. By
doing this, sociologists are making a ‘gentleman's promise’ which is exactly
what Weber was criticising when he said sociologists should take moral
responsibility for the effects of their work.
For Gouldner, they were dodging the moral issues that their work raised,
e.g. in helping to prevent revolutions in South America.

7. Committed Sociology
Myrdal and Gouldner argue that sociologists should not
only identify with their values, they should also openly ‘take
sides’, espousing the interests of the actual groups. It is
undesirable to be value-neutral since, without values to
guide research, sociologists are merely putting their
services up for sale. It is also impossible, because either the
sociologist’s own values or those of the paymasters, are
bound to be reflected in their work.

8. Whose Side Are We On?
The interactionist Becker asks: if all sociology is influenced by values,
‘Whose side are we on?’
Traditionally, functionalists and positivists have taken the viewpoint of the
powerful (police etc.). Becker argues we should take the side of the
underdog (criminals, mental patients etc.). Identifying with the powerless
links to the methods interactionists favour, like PO which they see as
revealing the meanings of these ‘outsiders’.
Gouldner criticises Becker for romanticising underdogs. Instead, he takes a
Marxist perspective, arguing that it is not enough to describe the underdog’s
life – sociologists should be committed to ending their oppression. According
to Gouldner, we should not be celebrating ‘the man on his back’; we should
be supporting ‘the man fighting back’.

9. Funding & Careers
Most research is funded by government, businesses etc. and who pays for
research may control its direction and the questions it asks.
 Funding bodies may prevent publication of the research if its findings
prove unacceptable
 Sociologists may want to further their careers so this may influence the
choice of topic
 They may censor themselves for fear of harming their career

10. Values, Perspectives & Methods
For Gouldner, all research is inevitably influenced by values. Values
influence the topics that sociologists of different perspectives choose, the
concepts they develop and the conclusions they reach.
Sociologists’ values influence choice of methods too. For example, Becker’s
support for the underdog leads him to choose qualitative methods to reveal
the underdog’s world. Similarly, functionalists make uncritical use of statistics
because they tend to take the side of the ‘establishment’.

11. Objectivity & Relativism
If all perspectives involve values, are their findings just a reflection of their
values, not objective facts? Relativism argues that different groups and
individuals have different views as to what is true and these reflect their own
values and interests. There is no way of judging whether any view is truer
than any other. Relativism argues that there is no absolute or objective truth
– just truths plural. What you believe is true is true – for you.

12. Relativism & Postmodernism
Postmodernists take a relativist view – there are no ‘privileged accounts’ of
society that have special access to the truth. Any perspective claiming to
have the truth is just a meta-narrative or ‘big story’ based on values and
assumptions.
However, critics argue that postmodernism is just a meta-narrative in itself
so we shouldn’t believe what they say either!